322 THE GAME LAWS. 



on his land, and his hawk pursued it into the plaintiff's ground. 

 It was resolved, that this doth not amount to a sufficient justi- 

 cation ; for in this case he can only follow his hawk, and not 

 take the game. Poph. 162. 



Though it is said to be otherwise where the soil of the plain- 

 tiff is not a warren. 2 Roll Abr. 567. 



With respect to the penalty which goes to the poor of the 

 parish where the offence was committed : in some places a man 

 may stand in one parish or county, and shoot in another ; and 

 in such a case, the place where the offence was committed is 

 where the party stood when he shot, and not where the object 

 was which he shot at. Shaw. 339. M. 3. W. King v. Alsop. 



A person was indicted on 23 Eliz. c. 10. for taking partridges, 

 cum reins ; and it was quashed, because it should have been 

 cum retibus, 3 Bulst: 178. 



Skill v. Tarr, Taunton assizes, 1801. This was an action to 

 recover the penalty of 5 for killing a pheasant without being 

 qualified, and 20 for so doing, without having taken out a cer- 

 tificate. It appeared that the defendant's dog had sprung a 

 pheasant, which he followed into an adjoining field, where the 

 dog stood, and that the defendant knocked it down with a rake 

 as it was rising. The counsel for the defendant argued against 

 a rake being considered such an instrument for killing game as 

 was intended by the statute ; but the learned judge found a ver- 

 dict for the plaintiff to the amount of the penalties. 



In an action of trespass, the plaintiff declared for taking pha- 

 sianos sues, in such a place, on trial, upon not guilty pleaded, 

 a verdict was found for the plaintiffs It was moved, in arrest 

 of judgment, that the declaration was naught, in using the word 

 suos, pheasants being feres natures^ in which the plaintiff could 

 have no property ; but the court gave judgment for the 

 plaintiff, for they said that they would intend the pheasants were 



